On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:18:07 +
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> [off-list]
>
> > I have been labelled a 'troll' which I am not, and
> > been the subject of personal abuse by SteveC.
>
> Hang about. I'm not SteveC and I wouldn't necessarily class him as
> among "the guys who are doing stuff" tha
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Weait"
To: "David Groom"
Cc: "talk-au"
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] CT / ODbL approval by changeset.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Groom
wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Richard Weait"
Th
On 22 November 2010 20:13, Ben Kelley wrote:
>
> If we get an agreeable licence for the main sources of "non-survey" data
> (I'm including at least Nearmap and the Bureau of Statistics data in that -
> what about Yahoo?) then this becomes a little more manageable.
>
Easiest first. Yahoo aerial im
On 22 November 2010 20:02, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>
> I find this quite offensive. Because I have discussed things and asked
> questions, while indicating that I do not agree, I have been treated
> extremely rudely on other OSM mailing lists, in particular by persons
> in 'high places'. I have been
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> I don't agree with ODBL. I don't think that it is right that those
> providing manipulated data eg data ready for a navigation app
> (Navit, Garmin format) should have to provide access to a planet
> dump of OSM as well.
They don't have to.
ODbL 4.6b: "You must also off
Hi.
I'm not sure this would work in practice. As others have said, it would be
very difficult (effectively impossible) to know which of the many edits I
have made in the last 3 years relied on data where the author doesn't now
agree to the contributor terms. It would be similarly difficult for fut
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:58:21 -0500
Richard Weait wrote:
> Glad to have your support on this.
I guess you don't comprehend Australian idiom.
I didn't read support in the reply at all, noting some sarcasm.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetma
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Because when you engage with the guys who are
> doing stuff, make suggestions, talk to them in a friendly manner, the
> result is better for everyone. That applies as much to licence
> discussions as it does to OSM software or w
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:50:09 +1100
Steve Bennett wrote:
> But I also
> haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, why
> a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be
> unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so.
I don't agree wi
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Groom wrote:
>> - Original Message - From: "Richard Weait"
>> The intent is to allow those with concerns about some of their data to
>> mark it, and accept the terms for the data they are confident in.
>>
>> One imagined implementation would provid
David Murn wrote:
> the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to
> address the problematic terms and simply tell people the
> decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion.
> Hardly the way to run an open community project.
I realise the phrase "assume good faith" i
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Weait"
To: "David Murn"
Cc: "talk-au"
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, David Murn
wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
But I also
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Weait"
To: "David Murn"
Cc: "talk-au"
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, David Murn wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
But I al
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, David Murn wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness,
>> why
>> a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be
>> unhappy to do so under
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness,
> why
> a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be
> unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so.
The problem occur
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Ben Kelley wrote:
> I think I'm in a similar situation. Some of my work is derived (e.g.
> Nearmap). Therefore I can't agree to the CT as they stand.
Dear Ben,
On License Working Group calls recently, we've discussed a method for
contributors to mark their chang
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:18 PM, David Murn wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 15:13 +1100, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
>> I would think the better solution is to have the attribution simplified
>> like Google Maps does. eg. Google Maps for canberra says "Copyright
>> PSMA, MapQuest" etc.
Dear Ale
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:
> OK worst case: Suppose that (and similar) data got deleted. Suppose there are
> enough people prepared to trust OSM afterwards to re-map the parts that can
> be remapped.
>
> What happens in the 2-3 years it takes to get back the "surveyable"
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Murn wrote:
> Thats fine for data that is sourced from NearMap. What about other data
> sources, such as imports and the like? Having said that, if the CTs are
> accepted by one group, Im sure theyll be accepted by most, as it seems
> that everyone has the
I think I'm in a similar situation. Some of my work is derived (e.g. Nearmap).
Therefore I can't agree to the CT as they stand.
OK worst case: Suppose that (and similar) data got deleted. Suppose there are
enough people prepared to trust OSM afterwards to re-map the parts that can be
remapped.
20 matches
Mail list logo
